NCAA tournament: Duke moves closer to total March irrelevance

While the final margin (23 points!) was a bit surprising, the outcome absolutely was not. Duke simply isn’t built for the NCAA tournament. Hasn’t been for years. Might not be for many more.

(But the Blue Devils are hell on wheels in December!)

Coach K and the gang were fortunate to get past Texas in the second round and completely dominated by Villanova tonight, failing for the fifth consecutive year to advance beyond the Sweet 16.

Here’s what I mean by moving closer to total March irrelevance:

2005: Lost in the Sweet 16 as a No. 1 seed
2006: Lost in the sweet 16 as a No. 1 seed
2007: Lost in the first round as a No. 6 seed
2008: Lost in the second round as a No. 2 seed
2009: Lost in the Sweet 16 as a No. 2 seed

(Plenty of programs have won more than one Sweet 16 game in that span, including Villanova.)

Duke’s postseason slide began after the ’04 Final Four run and coincides with the departure of Luol Deng to the NBA following just one season in Durham.

I don’t know if Deng was the proverbial last straw, but since then Krzyzewski has focused on recruiting players who would stay in college for three or four years.

Players like Greg Paulus and David McClure and Jon Scheyer and Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek and Kyle Singler.

And that’s all well and good, except those players don’t get you to the Final Four. Or the Elite Eight.

The Devils don’t play good enough perimeter defense, aren’t tough enough and (in case it wasn’t completely obvious tonight) don’t have enough players who can score off the dribble — three ingredients that are essential to March success.

March is all about beating a defender off the dribble in late-clock situations or stopping an offensive player from scoring off the dribble in late-clock situations. Duke can’t do either.

Until or unless Krzyzewski changes the makeup of his roster, the Devils will keep rolling in December and faltering in March.

Jon Wilner

Post navigation

(Plenty of programs that have won more than one Sweet 16 game in that span, including, um, Villanova.)

—

Remove ‘that’

Leftcoast

Let’s see ….

Duke’s downward swing started the same year as Stanford’s slide. They win big in the regular season and sputter before the sweet 16, lots of good but few great players, coach controlled offense, problems with perimeter defense against athletic teams …. THIS all sounds familiar!

Duke – The Stanford of the East.

Russ

The problem with that premise is that as usual Duke is LOADED with McDonald’s All Americans. McClure is I think the only guy you mentioned who wasn’t one. Zoubek I think only made it because he signed with Duke.

Coach K is also not all that hesitant to recruit one and dones, Duke made a late and very strong run at John Wall the top PG in the 09 class who’s the definition of one and done(probably going to Memphis). Duke even recruited the big African kid John Riek last year when nobody knew his real age or what year in school he was etc. Duke was hotly pursuing Kevin Love out of HS too until the runin with Nike and Coach K sided with Nike not Love. Duke has no problem going after one and dones.

The problem is Coach K has a hard time CLOSING on those recruits because they don’t play the style of ball those recruits want to play or they have some other issue like Duke not being very effective with bigmen.

Duke recruits a lot of big names, the problem is they miss on a bunch of them, they turn out to be not as good as Duke thought they were such as Boateng, Paulus, Boykin etc. taylor King was the latest.

Papa John

You almost got it right, Lefty. Harvard is the Stanford of the East. Duke is the Stanford of the South.

milo

Hmmm…given Johnny D is a Dukie…seems like Furd might be in the same boat or worse for quite some time…if they ever get back to the Dance.

mk92

Actually, milo, that’s exactly the boat Stanford is in and has always been in (under both Trent and Monty). Stanford has always recruited players that it anticipates staying 4 years. As a result, Stanford was one of the last programs to be hit by early departures. Casey Jacobson was the first true early departure — Jason Collins left with eligibility remaining but that was because of injury and not a true early departure. Since CJ left, others have followed (Childress and the Lopi), but Stanford has continued to recruit with the 4-year expectation.

Bill

mk92 – good analysis. You implied it, but let’s make it clearer for Milo – Stanford players are staying 4 years and GRADUATING.

You have to make that explicit for a Cal fan, as they’re unfamiliar with the concept.

milo

Bill and MK — I think you furds should conference and review staying or going. The list from Jacobson onwards conflicts with the 4 year ideal.

Frankly, if a kid is getting a decent education and can ascertain an early NBA entry is beneficial, then he indeed got a good education. It doesn’t take a rock scientist to realize, $2-4 mil over two years can set you up for life and you can return to get your degree.

It’s not like Furd doesn’t have that tradition with McEnroe, Tiger, etc. You guys talk a good game however. Keep it up and stay proud…all you need now is some winning, maybe a better coach and AD.

mk92

“I think you furds should conference and review staying or going. The list from Jacobson onwards conflicts with the 4 year ideal.”

No, it doesn’t conflict. When Stanford recruited Childress and the Lopi (though they didn’t really recruit the Lopi), they expected all three to stay four years. The fact that they left early does not change what Stanford’s expectations were. This is in contrast to players like Love, Mayo, Brandon Jennings, Holliday, Derrick Rose, and DeRozan — these guys were all expected to be one-and-done; so, Stanford would not have touched them (assuming they could’ve gained admission).

While you are correct that an NBA salary can set you up for life and allow you to return to get a degree later on, the reality is that most (not all though) never do return. The playing the college game and the college experience (at college age) is a unique one — and for some, staying all four years is the right decision, ability to play in the NBA notwithstanding.

Spencer

It was a shame the TV game on Ch. 5 in the WEST was a game in Boston with 2 east coast teams. A blow out and way less intertaining, too. MizzouRAH!

Dubya

Much as Wilner rails on Duke for slipping to this record, and mk is right that this parallels Stanford’s record over the last 20 years, the Weenies still ASPIRE to have this kind of track record.

And yes the recent pattern of stars leaving the program before their 4 years are up, but that’s also a sign of the times as well as the quality of recruits that have been brought in. Of course milo chimes in with the exceptions like McEnroe and Tiger, but fails to see the forest for the trees: most athletes who come to Stanford do so for BOTH the athletic AND the academic experience.

As a student I befriended one of the football players who ended up playing several years in the NFL and pretty well at that. But for two spring quarters after going to the NFL he was back on campus, finishing his degree. When I asked him why, he said “because I’m always one bad injury from needing to find a new career.”

milo

So furd, what’s the story on Toby Garhart, staying or leaving?

Any way, Stanfurd is a fine institution but man you guys sure talk a lot, “prefacing circumstances” quite a bit and qualifying limitations. If this wasn’t higher education I swear this would be plain old excuse making. Can’t you guys just show up and play instead of talking about 4 years, admissions, how elite Furd is, etc.?

Cal has all kinds of weirdness like a bureaucracy so entrenched it could choke Hoover’s ghost and make a Gordian Knot look like a bow tie. And then there’s the very real anti-sport contingent within the admin, on campus and among the faculty. Yet you don’t hear Cal whining about this stuff. All I can say is…

Man up Stanfurd, man up! 🙂

Leftcoast

No cal whining? What cave have you lived in for the last 20 years? Whine only follows snark as the defining cal characteristic.

mk92

“Any way, Stanfurd is a fine institution but man you guys sure talk a lot, “prefacing circumstances” quite a bit and qualifying limitations.”

That’s rich, milo. You brought up the issue of whether Stanford will be in the same boat. Several of us respond by agreeing with you and then pointing out that we’ve been in that boat for a while. You then have the chutzpah to criticize us for essentially agreeing with what you were asserting.

bigbullship

Well this was about duke- and it is simple imo- when Duke has Bigs that can play- they do well. When they dont- like the last 5 years or so- they cant beat teams that do- it is that simple. Pretty similar story for Monty and TJ at stanford- madsen, colllins, young, lopi- even revano and wright- when those guys were jr’s/sr’s the team was very good. Duke has not had a great ‘big’ since elton brand- thus they have struggled-that had a few who were supposed to be great- but have not panned out . pretty simple really.

Bill

Milo, I was referring to the latest and greatest NCAA graduation reports, which had Cal at a blazing 52% for football and 33% for basketball. Those are great numbers for such a hallowed institution. I didn’t realize 67% of Cal bball players were making that informed decision to jump to the NBA without a degree. But I guess that’s what you’re saying. Hard to say sometimes, actually, given your amazing ability to simultaneously agree and disagree with yourself.

Given that Stanford’s numbers were almost exactly twice as high in both sports, and further, given the examples you cite of Stanford students leaving early and becoming incredibly successful, I feel pretty comfortable talking about it, Milo.

PapaBear

Billy Boy & Others:

I can’t believe you guys are still spouting outdated Graduation Success Rate (GSR) data, when it has previously been pointed out that your “statistics” are no longer relevant. By continuing to ignore the more current NCAA Academic Progress Rates (APR), you look ignorant, foolish, extremely insecure, and pathetic.

AS BEFORE:

1) The last reported GSR is for academic years 1998-2001
2) More current data is the APR
3) An APR score of 925 translates approximately to a 60% Graduation Success Rate (GSR).
4) A perfect APR score is 1000
5) 2008 APRs for football & mens’ hoops:
Football
Stanford = 986
Cal = 967
Men’s Basketball
Stanford = 954
Cal = 942
6) In football the APR national average for football teams from Public Universities is 925 and from Private Universities is 958. In basketball the APR national average for basketball teams from Public Universities is 918 and from Private Universities is 948.

We could sit here and argue which Bay Area school is doing better, especially relative to their respective national averages. But it is time to move on. I’d rather we just acknowledge that both Universities are providing their student-athletes meaningful educational experiences at premier academic institutions. Continuing to say Cal is not doing so is baseless.